Women are credited less in science than men

Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias

Biographical features like social and economic status, ethnicity, sexuality, care roles, and gender unfairly disadvantage individuals within academia. Authorship patterns should reflect the social dimension behind the publishing process and co-authorship dynamics. To detect potential gender biases in the authorship of papers and examine the extent of women's contribution in terms of the substantial volume of scientific production in Ecology, we surveyed papers from the top-ranked journal Ecology from 1999 to 2021. We developed a Women's Contribution Index (WCI) to measure gender-based individual contributions. Considering gender, allocation in the author list, and the total number of authors, the WCI calculates the sum of each woman's contribution per paper. We compared the WCI with women's expected contributions in a non-gender-biased scenario. Overall, women account for 30% of authors of Ecology, yet their contribution to papers is higher than expected by chance (i.e., over-contribution). Additionally, by comparing the WCI with an equivalent Men's Contribution Index, we found that women consistently have higher contributions compared to men. We also observed a temporal trend of increasing women's authorship and mixed-gender papers. This suggests some progress in addressing gender bias in the field of ecology. However, we emphasize the need for a better understanding of the pattern of over-contribution, which may partially stem from the phenomenon of over-compensation. In this context, women might need to outperform men to be perceived and evaluated as equals. The WCI provides a valuable tool for quantifying individual contributions and understanding gender biases in academic publishing. Moreover, the index could be customized to suit the specific question of interest. It serves to uncover a previously non-quantified type of bias (over-contribution) that, we argue, is the response to the inequitable structure of the scientific system, leading to differences in the roles of individuals within a scientific publishing team.

Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Wikipedia is the largest free online encyclopedia and the seventh most visited website worldwide, containing >45,000 freely accessible English-language medical articles accessed nearly 1.6 billion times annually. Concerns have been expressed about the balance of content related to biological sex on Wikipedia.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to categorize the top 1000 most-read (most popular) English-language Wikipedia health articles for June 2019 according to the relevance of the article topic to each sex and quality.

METHODS

In the first step, Wikipedia articles were identified using WikiProject Medicine Popular Pages. These were analyzed on 13 factors, including total views, article quality, and total number of references. In the second step, 2 general medical textbooks were used as comparators to assess whether Wikipedia's spread of articles was typical compared to the general medical coverage. According to the article's content, we proposed criteria with 5 categories: 1="exclusively female," 2="predominantly female but can also affect male individuals," 3="not sex specific or neutral," 4=predominantly male but can affect female individuals," and 5="exclusively male."

RESULTS

Of the 1000 Wikipedia health articles, 993 (93.3%) were not sex specific and 67 (6.7%) were sex specific. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of reads per month between the sex-specific and non-sex-specific articles (P=.29). Coverage of female topics was higher (50/1000, 5%) than male topics (17/1000, 1.7%; this difference was also observed for the 2 medical textbooks, in which 90.2% (2330/2584) of content was not sex specific, female topics accounted for 8.1% (209/2584), and male topics for accounted for 1.7% (45/2584; statistically significant difference; Fisher exact test P=.03). Female-category articles were ranked higher on the Wikipedia medical topic importance list (top, high, or mid importance) than male-category articles (borderline statistical significance; Fisher exact test P=.05). Female articles had a higher number of total and unique references; a slightly higher number of page watchers, pictures, and available languages; and lower number of edits than male articles (all were statistically nonsignificant).

CONCLUSIONS

Across several metrics, a sample of popular Wikipedia health-related articles for both sexes had comparable quality. Wikipedia had a lower number of female articles and a higher number of neutral articles relative to the 2 medical textbooks. These differences were small, but statistically significant. Higher exclusively female coverage, compared to exclusively male coverage, in Wikipedia articles was similar to the 2 medical textbooks and can be explained by inclusion of sections on obstetrics and gynecology. This is unlike the imbalance seen among biographies of living people, in which approximately 77.6% pertain to male individuals. Although this study included a small sample of articles, the spread of Wikipedia articles may reflect the readership and the population's content consumption at a given time. Further study of a larger sample of Wikipedia articles would be valuable.

Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women

We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work.

Gender differences in research fields of bioeconomy and rural development-based on sustainable systems in Latin America and Africa regions

Using bibliometric analysis of large-scale publication data is a simple approach to exploring gender-related trends, especially gender equality in academic publishing. The aim of this study is to investigate gender trends in the fields of bio-economy and rural development sciences in two under develop regions as Latin America and Africa. This study examines gender differences in these fields in order to: (1) recognize the contribution of female researchers in bioeconomy and rural development, (2) explore the relational structure of gender aspects in academic publications, (3) identify trends in female authorship in these scientific research fields over time, and finally (4) identify gender potentials for women to become more visible in these fields of study. To achieve these objectives, we used bibliometric tools to analyses 1891 publication records in bioeconomy and rural development. After cleaning the database of full names of authors of academic publications relevant to the field studies, we performed a series of statistical analyses in R and SPSS software, such as Lotkas distribution, network analysis, co-authorship analysis and spatial distribution of authors in the study. The results show that the number of male authors is almost three times higher than the number of female authors, suggesting that women are under-represented in the fields studied. Men occupy the most important position of authorship in scientific articles; publications with corresponding male authors were found in 1389 out of 1891 publications related to the bio-economy and rural development. In terms of geographical regions, publications with female authors were more prevalent in European and North American areas, with a small exception in some developing countries such as Argentina and South Africa. In terms of research networks, from the total number of authors evaluated, only 23% are female authors on the map of research influence. This indicates that there is a significant gap to be filled in the promotion of scholarly impact through the sharing of knowledge and expertise among authors.

Sex bias in pain management decisions

In the pursuit of mental and physical health, effective pain management stands as a cornerstone. Here, we examine a potential sex bias in pain management. Leveraging insights from psychological research showing that females' pain is stereotypically judged as less intense than males' pain, we hypothesize that there may be tangible differences in pain management decisions based on patients' sex. Our investigation spans emergency department (ED) datasets from two countries, including discharge notes of patients arriving with pain complaints (N = 21,851). Across these datasets, a consistent sex disparity emerges. Female patients are less likely to be prescribed pain-relief medications compared to males, and this disparity persists even after adjusting for patients' reported pain scores and numerous patient, physician, and ED variables. This disparity extends across medical practitioners, with both male and female physicians prescribing less pain-relief medications to females than to males. Additional analyses reveal that female patients' pain scores are 10% less likely to be recorded by nurses, and female patients spend an additional 30 min in the ED compared to male patients. A controlled experiment employing clinical vignettes reinforces our hypothesis, showing that nurses (N = 109) judge pain of female patients to be less intense than that of males. We argue that the findings reflect an undertreatment of female patients' pain. We discuss the troubling societal and medical implications of females' pain being overlooked and call for policy interventions to ensure equal pain treatment.

A framework for decolonising and diversifying biomedical sciences curricula: rediscovery, representation and readiness

To date, most efforts to decolonise curricula have focussed on the arts and humanities, with many believing that science subjects are objective, unbiased, and unaffected by colonial legacies. However, science is shaped by both contemporary and historical culture. Science has been used to support imperialism, to extract and exploit knowledge and natural resources, and to justify racist and ableist ideologies. Colonial legacies continue to affect scientific knowledge generation and shape contemporary research priorities. In the biomedical sciences, research biases can feed into wider health inequalities. Reflection of these biases in our taught curricula risks perpetuating long-standing inequities to future generations of scientists. We examined attitudes and understanding towards decolonising and diversifying the curriculum among students and teaching staff in the biomedical sciences at the University of Bristol, UK, to discover whether our current teaching practice is perceived as inclusive. We used a mixed methods study including surveys of staff (N = 71) and students (N = 121) and focus groups. Quantitative data showed that staff and students think decolonising the curriculum is important, but this is more important to female respondents (P < 0.001). Students are less aware than staff of current efforts to decolonise the curriculum, while students from minority ethnic groups feel less represented by the curriculum than white students. Thematic analysis of qualitative data revealed three themes that are important for a decolonised curriculum in our context: rediscovery, representation and readiness. We propose that this '3Rs framework' could guide future efforts to decolonise and diversify the curriculum in the biomedical sciences and beyond.

Gender differences, academic patenting, and tenure-track reform in China: Evidence from life sciences at elite universities

This study is the first to examine the gender gap in academic patenting among faculty members in Chinese universities, a critical issue for the sustainable development of scientific research and innovation. Using a unique dataset that includes the patenting activities and professional status of 1,836 faculty members in life science-related departments at 36 top Chinese universities, this research reveals an evolving landscape of patenting dynamics. The trend of male faculty members leading in the annual number of patent applications and patents granted has shifted among newly graduated faculty members. Female faculty submit and receive their first patent applications significantly earlier than male faculty. However, male faculty are more likely to be lead inventors, and this gender gap remains difficult to close, with female faculty more likely to be supporting inventors. This research is contextualized within the broader framework of China's university tenure reform and the growing presence of women in the life sciences. While progress is evident, the study uncovers persistent systemic barriers that prevent women from fully translating their research into patentable innovations. By identifying these social and institutional barriers, our study not only sheds light on the gender gap, but also suggests policy measures to promote gender equity in scientific innovation, making it a critical read for policymakers and academic leaders.

Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship

Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.

Fostering student authorship skills in synthetic biology

Women and racial minorities are underrepresented in the synthetic biology community. Developing a scholarly identity by engaging in a scientific community through writing and communication is an important component for STEM retention, particularly for underrepresented individuals. Several excellent pedagogical tools have been developed to teach scientific literacy and to measure competency in reading and interpreting scientific literature. However, fewer tools exist to measure learning gains with respect to writing, or that teach the more abstract processes of peer review and scientific publishing, which are essential for developing scholarly identity and publication currency. Here we describe our approach to teaching scientific writing and publishing to undergraduate students within a synthetic biology course. Using gold standard practices in project-based learning, we created a writing project in which students became experts in a specific application area of synthetic biology with relevance to an important global problem or challenge. To measure learning gains associated with our learning outcomes, we adapted and expanded the Student Attitudes, Abilities, and Beliefs (SAAB) concept inventory to include additional questions about the process of scientific writing, authorship, and peer review. Our results suggest the project-based approach was effective in achieving the learning objectives with respect to writing and peer reviewed publication, and resulted in high student satisfaction and student self-reported learning gains. We propose that these educational practices could contribute directly to the development of scientific identity of undergraduate students as synthetic biologists, and will be useful in creating a more diverse synthetic biology research enterprise.

SIR… or MADAM? The impact of privilege on careers in epidemic modelling

As we emerge from what may be the largest global public health crises of our lives, our community of epidemic modellers is naturally reflecting. What role can modelling play in supporting decision making during epidemics? How could we more effectively interact with policy makers? How should we design future disease surveillance systems? All crucial questions. But who is going to be addressing them in 10 years' time? With high burnout and poor attrition rates in academia, both magnified in our field by our unprecedented efforts during the pandemic, and with low wages coinciding with inflation at its highest for decades, how do we retain talent? This is a multifaceted challenge, that I argue is underpinned by privilege. In this perspective, I introduce the notion of privilege and highlight how various aspects of privilege (namely gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language and caring responsibilities) may affect the ability of individuals to access to and progress within academic modelling careers. I propose actions that members of the epidemic modelling research community may take to mitigate these issues and ensure we have a more diverse and equitable workforce going forward.

Towards equal representation - A bibliometric analysis of authorships in Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry from the United States, Canada, and Europe (2005-2022)

Objectives

Although diversity has been demonstrated to benefit research groups, women remain underrepresented in most scientific disciplines, including Laboratory Medicine and Clinical Chemistry. In order to promote diversity and equality in scientific communities, understanding the gender distribution of authorship is crucial.

Methods

This study included a total of 30,268 Web of Science-listed Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine publications from the United States of America, Canada, and the member countries of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine from 2005 to 2022. In addition to the publication productivity of female and male authors over time, gender-specific publication characteristics and country-specific gender distributions of authorships were examined.

Results

Overall, publications with female first authors increased by 49 % between 2005 and 2022, averaging 42 % female first authors. Eastern Europe (60 %) and Southern Europe (51 %) had particularly high proportions of female first authors. While female last authorship was the most predictive of female first authorship, with an odds ratio of 2.01 (95 % CI: 1.91-2.12, p < 0.001), only 27 % of last authors were female. Moreover, citation rate was not predictive of female first or last authorship.

Conclusion

Authorship in Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine is moving towards gender parity. This trend is more pronounced for first authors than for last authors. Further research into the citations of female authors in this discipline could be a starting point for increasing the visibility of women researchers in science. Moreover, geographical differences may provide opportunities for future research on gender parity across disciplines.

Analysis of justification for author order and gender bias in author order among those contributing equally

The practice of designating two or more authors as equal contributors (ECs) on a scientific publication is increasingly common as a form of sharing credit. However, EC authors are often unclearly attributed on curriculum vitae (CVs) or citation engines, and it is unclear how research teams determine author order within an EC listing. In response to studies showing that male authors were more likely to be placed first in an EC listing, the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) required that authors explain the reasons for author order beginning in 2020. In this study, we analyze data from over 2,500 ASM publications to see how this policy affected gender bias and how research teams are making decisions on author order. Data on publications from 2018 to 2021 show that gender bias was largely nonsignificant both before and after authors were asked by ASM to provide an EC statement. The most likely reasons for EC order included alphabetical order, seniority, and chance, although there were differences for publications from different geographic regions. However, many research teams used unique methods in order selection, highlighting the importance of EC statements to provide clarity for readers, funding agencies, and tenure committees.

IMPORTANCE

First-author publications are important for early career scientists to secure funding and educational opportunities. However, an analysis published in eLife in 2019 noted that female authors are more likely to be placed second even when both authors report they have contributed equally. American Society for Microbiology announced in response that they would require submissions to include a written justification of author order. In this paper, we analyze the resultant data and show that laboratories are most likely to use some combination of alphabetical order, seniority, and chance to determine author order. However, the prevalence of these methods varies based on the research team's geographic location. These findings highlight the importance of equal contributor statements to provide clarity for readers, funding agencies, and tenure committees. Furthermore, this work is critically important for understanding how these decisions are made and provides a glimpse of the sociology of science.

Bibliometric comparison of Nobel Prize laureates in physiology or medicine and chemistry

The Nobel Prize is an annual honor awarded to the researchers who have made the greatest contribution to humanity with their work in the year in question. Nobel Prizes for physiology or medicine and chemistry most often have direct or indirect pharmacological relevance. In this study, we performed a bibliometric analysis of Nobel Prize laureates from 2006 to 2022. The parameters include the nationalities and age of the laureates, age at their productivity peaks, the research locations, the H-index, the age-adjusted H-index, and the number of citations and publications, and, for each parameter, a comparison of female and male award laureates. Men were much more often awarded the Nobel Prize than women. Surprisingly, women were younger than their male colleagues at the time of the award although the productivity peak was similar. There was a correlation between all publications and the H-index, which was slightly stronger for women than for men. The age-adjusted H-index showed no difference among genders. The USA were the country with the highest number of Nobel Prize laureates, both male and female. Overall, the bibliometric characteristics of male and female Nobel Prize laureates are similar, indicating that among the group of Nobel Prize laureates, there is no bias against women. Rather, the achievements of women are recognized earlier than those of men. The major difference is that the number of women becoming Nobel Prize laureates is much smaller than the number of men. This study provides a starting for future studies with larger populations of scientists to analyze disparities.

Matching Against Men: 5 Years of Residency Match Data Show Disparities Still Exist

OBJECTIVES

Despite progress toward equal representation by sex in medical practice, women remain underrepresented in many specialties. This study sought to examine the current state of gender equality among recently graduated doctors in multiple specialties.

METHODS

Deidentified demographics, standardized examination scores, and Match results were gathered for 829 graduates. Participants were selected from an allopathic medical school between 2016 and 2020. Nineteen students (2.29%) were excluded from the study. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and χ2 tests for independence were used to compare proportions between reported sex and specialty and program Match results. One-way analysis of variance was then performed to test for differences in US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 scores between sexes. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Of the 829 individuals studied, 44.6% were women. A significantly smaller proportion of women matched into the most competitive specialties, despite no significant difference in US Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 scores between sexes. Furthermore, there was an overall significant trend of women matching into more competitive programs for any given specialty.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we found that men matched into more highly competitive specialties, whereas women matched into more competitive residency program locations. Further research is needed to determine why women matched into specific specialties at lower rates than their male peers and seek to understand how sex affects the narrative of specialty choice.

Women in Plastic Surgery Innovation: A 10-Year Review of Gender Representation in Mammary Device Patents

BACKGROUND

This study aims to pioneer in evaluating women's representation in plastic surgery innovations, focusing on mammary prosthesis devices' inventorship. Despite growing gender parity in the field, women's involvement in innovation remains underexplored. This is especially crucial, as the predominant recipients of these innovative technologies are women, urging a necessity for broader female engagement in pioneering surgical advancements.

METHOD

Patents under the "A61F2/12: Mammary prostheses and implants" classification between the dates January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, were identified using Google Patents Advanced. Inclusion criteria included patents (not designs) in English and applications (not grants), with no litigation limitations. Data collected included ID, title, assignee (categorized as industry, academic, private, individual), inventors, and dates (priority, filing, and publication). Sex of inventors was identified with the literature validated gender API, with manual resolution of unresolved genders or with ga_accuracy scores of less than 75%. Data were analyzed using 2-tailed Student t tests, χ2 analysis, and Pearson correlation coefficient (significance set at P ≤ 0.05).

RESULTS

Of the more than 130,000 plastic surgery patents in English identified between the 10-year period, 1355 were classified as A61F2/12. A total of 374 unique patents were included for analysis (841 duplicates were removed, and 140 patents were excluded because of non-English character author names). There was a significant increase in patents over the decade (from 15 in 2011 to 88 in 2020, R2 = 0.74, P < 0.05), with a decrease in number of inventors per patent (R2 = 0.12, P < 0.05). Of the 1102 total inventors, 138 were female (11.2%), with a 4-fold increase in representation over the decade (R2 = 0.58, P < 0.05), including increase in patents filed with a woman first inventor (0%-14.8%). Women were equally likely to be first 3 inventors versus middle to last inventors (12.8% vs 11.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Over a decade, mammary device innovations rose significantly. Although women inventors' representation improved, it remains disproportionate compared with women in residency/practice. Hence, interventions should aim to align inventor representation with training ratios, through institutional optimization, reducing gender segmentation, and enhancing funding opportunities.

Saudi women STEM pioneers: penetrating the mud ceiling

Although researchers actively study women's experiences in STEM fields, few do so from women's perspective. We thematically analyzed life narrative semi-structured interview data (46-item open-ended instrument, 90-120 Min) from eight STEM pioneering Saudi Arabian women careerists (mathematics, medicine, and biology) (convenience sample summer 2023). The objective was to glean their insights to discern self-reported influences (internal and external), struggles, and challenges in launching and advancing their careers. The extremely accomplished participants (all married, most with children) averaged age 65+, had 40+ years of experience and came from the three largest Saudi provinces. Important factors influencing choosing STEM included personality traits (e.g., deep desire to academically succeed; problem focused); secondary school peer/academic learning experiences; and male family member support, especially fathers. Struggles and challenges (often viewed as opportunities) included the mud (not glass) ceiling; male colleagues' harsh, prejudiced treatment; and unsupportive administration. Participants were research driven and willing to relocate, re-educate, and change direction to establish and advance their careers. Implications for future research and policy initiatives are woven into the discussion and recommendations.

Female researchers are under-represented in the Colombian science infrastructure

Worldwide women have increased their participation in STEM, but we are still far from reaching gender parity. Although progress can be seen at the bachelor's and master's level, career advancement of women in research still faces substantial challenges leading to a 'leaky pipeline' phenomenon (i.e., the continuous decrease of women's participation at advanced career stages). Latin America exhibits encouraging rates of women participation in research, but the panorama varies across countries and stages in the academic ladder. This study focuses on women's participation in research in natural sciences in Colombia and investigates career progression, leadership roles, and funding rates by analyzing data on scholarships, grants, rankings, and academic positions. Overall, we found persistent gender imbalances throughout the research ecosystem that were significant using classical statistical analyses. First, although women constitute >50% graduates from bachelors in natural sciences, <40% of researchers in this field are female. Second, women win <30% of research grants, and in turn, their scientific productivity is 2X lower than that of men. Third, because of the less research funding and output women have, their promotion to senior positions in academic and research rankings is slower. In consequence, only ~25% of senior researchers and full professors are women. Fourth, the proportion of women leading research groups and mentoring young scientist in Colombia is <30%. Our study deepens our understanding of gender gaps in STEM research in Colombia, and provides information to design initiatives that effectively target gender disparities by focusing on key areas of intervention, and then gradually building up, rather than tackling structural inequities all at once.

Analysis of justification for and gender bias in author order among those contributing equally

The practice of designating two or more authors as equal contributors (EC) on a scientific publication is increasingly common as a form of sharing credit. However, EC authors are often unclearly attributed on CVs or citation engines, and it is unclear how research teams determine author order within an EC listing. In response to studies showing that male authors were more likely to be placed first in an EC listing, the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) required that authors explain the reasons for author order beginning in 2020. In this study we analyze data from over 2500 ASM publications to see how this policy affected gender bias and how research teams are making decisions on author order. Data on publications from 2018-2021 show that gender bias was largely nonsignificant both before and after authors were asked by ASM to provide an EC statement. The most likely reasons for EC order included alphabetical order, seniority, and chance, although there were differences for publications from different geographic regions. However, many research teams used unique methods in order selection, highlighting the importance of EC statements to provide clarity for readers, funding agencies, and tenure committees.

Scientific civility and academic performance

In modern science, interdisciplinary and collaborative research is encouraged among scientists to solve complex problems. However, when the time comes to measure an individual's academic productivity, collaborative efforts are hard to conceptualize and quantify. In this study, we hypothesized that a social behavior coined "scientific civility", which encompasses civility, collaboration, cooperation, or a combination of these, enhances an individual's productivity influencing their academic performance. To facilitate recognition of this unique attribute within the scientific environment, we developed a new indicator: the C score. We examined publicly available data from 1000 academic scientists at the individual-level, focusing on their scholarly output and collaborative networks as a function of geographic distribution and time. Our findings strongly suggest that the C score gauges academic performance from an integral perspective based on a synergistic interaction between productivity and collaborative networks, prevailing over institutionally limited economic resources and minimizing inequalities related to the length of individual's academic career, field of investigation, and gender.

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer

Open science ensures that research is transparently reported and freely accessible for all to assess and collaboratively build on. Psychiatric genetics has led among the health sciences in implementing some open science practices in common study designs, such as replication as part of genome-wide association studies. However, thorough open science implementation guidelines are limited and largely not specific to data, privacy, and research conduct challenges in psychiatric genetics. Here, we present a primer of open science practices, including selection of a research topic with patients/nonacademic collaborators, equitable authorship and citation practices, design of replicable, reproducible studies, preregistrations, open data, and privacy issues. We provide tips for informative figures and inclusive, precise reporting. We discuss considerations in working with nonacademic collaborators and distributing research through preprints, blogs, social media, and accessible lecture materials. Finally, we provide extra resources to support every step of the research process.

Support, networks, and relationships: Findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of a mentorship programme for early career women researchers in sexual and reproductive health and rights

Low research output among women researchers in health research has been linked to inadequate mentorship opportunities for early career women researchers and particularly in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) field. Mentorship has been recognized as a contributor to strengthening research capacity and as beneficial for both mentors and mentees. Women researchers oftentimes experience negative impacts of organizational and structural gender inequities related to formal and informal mentoring. In 2020, the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction at WHO launched a mentorship programme for early career SRHR women researchers from low- and middle-income countries. The programme sought to provide professional skill-building, promote and share networking opportunities, and offer support in navigating personal and professional life. We conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods evaluation of the 2020 pilot programme, which included 26 participants, through an online survey and semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs). Data collection occurred between March and May 2022. Nineteen responded to the online survey (12 mentees, 7 mentors) and 11 IDIs (7 mentees, 4 mentors) were completed. Based on a preliminary framework, we used deductive and inductive methods to identify six themes: views on mentorship; reasons for applying and expectations of participation in the programme; preferred aspects of programme implementation; challenges with the programme implementation; perceived lasting benefits of the programme; and recommendations for improvement. All participants found the initial training useful, most discussed work-life prioritization throughout the mentorship relationship, and most planned to continue with the relationship. There appear to be ample benefits to mentorship, especially when planned and implemented in a structured manner. These attributes can be particularly beneficial when they are conceived as a two-way relationship of mutual learning and support, and especially for women at the start of their research careers as they navigate structural gender inequities.

Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors

The fairness of decisions made at various stages of the publication process is an important topic in meta-research. Here, based on an analysis of data on the gender of authors, editors and reviewers for 23,876 initial submissions and 7,192 full submissions to the journal eLife, we report on five stages of the publication process. We find that the board of reviewing editors (BRE) is men-dominant (69%) and that authors disproportionately suggest male editors when making an initial submission. We do not find evidence for gender bias when Senior Editors consult Reviewing Editors about initial submissions, but women Reviewing Editors are less engaged in discussions about these submissions than expected by their proportion. We find evidence of gender homophily when Senior Editors assign full submissions to Reviewing Editors (i.e., men are more likely to assign full submissions to other men (77% compared to the base assignment rate to men RE of 70%), and likewise for women (41% compared to women RE base assignment rate of 30%))). This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. However, we do not find evidence for gender bias when authors appeal decisions made by editors to reject submissions. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias. Measures accounting for women's circumstances and needs (e.g., delaying discussions until all RE are engaged) and raising editorial awareness to women's needs may be essential to increasing gender equity and enhancing academic publication.

Scientists' Views on the Ethics, Promises and Practices of Synthetic Biology: A Qualitative Study of Australian Scientific Practice

Synthetic biology is a broad term covering multiple scientific methodologies, technologies, and practices. Pairing biology with engineering, synbio seeks to design and build biological systems, either through improving living cells by adding in new functions, or creating new structures by combining natural and synthetic components. As with all new technologies, synthetic biology raises a number of ethical considerations. In order to understand what these issues might be, and how they relate to those covered in ethics literature on synbio, we conducted an interview study with practicing synthetic biologists affiliated with a synthetic biology centre in Australia. Scientists identified a range of ethical challenges germane to the field, including precarious employment, pressures from industry, gender inequity, and the negative effects of the hyping of synbio. These challenges differed markedly from those identified in the ethics literature, whose treatment of the harms and benefits of synbio remains largely speculative and abstract. In our discussion of the pragmatic, every day ethical issues synthetic biologists face, we illustrate how issues of waste or research integrity play pivotal roles in everything from lived experiences in the laboratory, to long-term research trajectories guiding the field. In a confirmation of the ethical relevance of our participant's views on the field, we argue that the subjects they raise must be included in any ethical analysis of synbio as a field.

Creating a multi-linked dynamic dataset: a case study of plant genera named for women

Background

A discussion on social media led to the formation of a multidisciplinary group working on this project to highlight women's contributions to science. The role of marginalised groups in science has been a topic of much discussion, but data on these contributions are largely lacking. Our motivation for the development of this dataset was not only to highlight names of plant genera that honour women, but to enrich this information with data that would allow the names, roles and lives of these women to be shared more widely with others, both researchers and data sources like Wikidata. Amplification of the contributions of women to botany through multiple means will enable the community to better recognise and celebrate the role of this particular marginalised group in the history and development of science.

New information

The innovative approach of our study resulted in a dataset that is dynamic, expansive and widely shared. We have published a static dataset with this paper and have also created a dynamic dataset by linking flowering plant genera and the women in whose honour those genera were named in Wikidata. This concurrent addition of the data to Wikidata, a linked open data repository, enabled it to be enriched, queried and proactively shared during the whole process of dataset creation and into the future. This innovative workflow allowed wide, open participation throughout the research process. The methodology and workflows applied can be used to create future datasets celebrating and amplifying the contributions of marginalised groups in science.

Gendered Performance Gaps in an Upper-Division Biology Course: Academic, Demographic, Environmental, and Affective Factors

Despite the existent gender parity in undergraduate biology degree attainment, gendered differences in outcomes are prevalent in introductory biology courses. Less is known about whether these disparities persist at the upper-division level, after most attrition is assumed to have occurred. Here, we report the consistent presence of gender equity gaps across 35 offerings (10 years) of a large-enrollment upper-division biology course at a research-intensive public university. Multilevel modeling showed that women's grades were lower than men's, regardless of prior GPA. These gender gaps were present even when controlling for students' race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, first-generation college-going status, international status, and transfer status. Class size, gender representation in the classroom, and instructor gender did not significantly relate to course grades. Student questionnaires in a subset of offerings indicated gendered differences in course anxiety, science identity, and science self-efficacy, which correlated with grade outcomes. These results suggest that women experience differential outcomes in upper-division biology, which may negatively influence their persistence in STEM fields postgraduation. Our findings suggest that gender disparities are a systemic problem throughout the undergraduate biology degree and underscore the need for further examination and transformation of upper-division courses to support all students, even at late stages of their degrees.

Paving a Path to Gender Parity: Recent Trends in Participation of Women in an Academic Surgery Society (Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract)

INTRODUCTION

The proportion of women surgeons is increasing, although women in surgical leadership and research has not kept pace. The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract (SSAT) pledged its commitment to diversity and inclusion in 2016. Our study sought to evaluate the temporal trend of gender representation in leadership, speakership, and research at SSAT.

METHODS

Publicly available SSAT meeting programs from 2010 to 2022 were reviewed to assess gender proportions within leadership positions (officers and committee chairs); invited speakerships, multidisciplinary symposia, and committee panel session moderators and speakers; and contributions to scientific sessions (moderator, first author and senior author). Verified individual professional profiles were analyzed to categorize gender as woman, man, or unavailable. Descriptive and trend analyses using linear regression and chi-squared testing were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 5506 individuals were reviewed; 1178 (21.4%) were identified as women and 4328 (78.6%) as men or did not have available data. The absolute proportion of total female participation increased by 1.05% per year (R2=0.82). There was a statistically significant difference in the total proportion of women participation before and after 2016 (18.5% vs. 27.1%, p<0.01). Increases in the proportion of women were demonstrated in leadership, invited speakerships, multidisciplinary symposia, committee panel sessions, research session moderators, and abstract first authors. The proportion of women senior authors remained stagnant.

CONCLUSION

Though this upward trajectory in SSAT women participation is encouraging, current trends predict that gender parity will not be reached until 2044.

Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors

We evaluated how the gender composition of top-cited authors within different subfields of research has evolved over time. We considered 9,071,122 authors with at least 5 full papers in Scopus as of September 1, 2022. Using a previously validated composite citation indicator, we identified the 2% top-cited authors for each of 174 science subfields (Science-Metrix classification) in 4 separate publication age cohorts (first publication pre-1992, 1992 to 2001, 2002 to 2011, and post-2011). Using NamSor, we assigned 3,784,507 authors as men and 2,011,616 as women (for 36.1% gender assignment uncertain). Men outnumbered women 1.88-fold among all authors, decreasing from 3.93-fold to 1.36-fold over time. Men outnumbered women 3.21-fold among top-cited authors, decreasing from 6.41-fold to 2.28-fold over time. In the youngest (post-2011) cohort, 32/174 (18%) subfields had > = 50% women, 97/174 (56%) subfields had > = 30% women, and 3 subfields had = <10% women among the top-cited authors. Gender imbalances in author numbers decreased sharply over time in both high-income countries (including the United States of America) and other countries, but the latter had little improvement in gender imbalances for top-cited authors. In random samples of 100 women and 100 men from the youngest (post-2011) cohort, in-depth assessment showed that most were currently (April 2023) working in academic environments. 32 women and 44 men had some faculty appointment, but only 2 women and 2 men were full professors. Our analysis shows large heterogeneity across scientific disciplines in the amelioration of gender imbalances with more prominent imbalances persisting among top-cited authors and slow promotion pathways even for the most-cited young scientists.

Demographic and Academic Productivity Trends Among American Head & Neck Society Fellows Over a 20-Year Period

Importance

Historical data reveal that, compared with women, men are more likely to pursue a head and neck surgical oncology fellowship, but little is known about possible gender differences in academic productivity.

Objective

To assess demographic trends and academic productivity among American Head & Neck Society (AHNS) fellowship graduates.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used electronically published data from the AHNS on fellowship graduates in the US and Canada from July 1, 1997, to June 30, 2022. Scopus was used to extract h-indices for each graduate.

Exposure

Scholarly activity.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Main outcomes were changes in demographic characteristics and academic productivity among AHNS graduates over time. Data analysis included effect size, η2, and 95% CIs.

Results

A total of 691 AHNS fellowship graduates (525 men [76%] and 166 women [24%]) were included. Over the study period, there was an increase in the number of programs offering a fellowship (η2, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89) and an increase in the absolute number of women who completed training (η2, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.38-0.78). Among early-career graduates pursuing an academic career, there was a small difference in the median h-index scores between men and women (median difference, 1.0; 95% CI, -1.1 to 3.1); however, among midcareer and late-career graduates, there was a large difference in the median h-index scores (midcareer graduates: median difference, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.2-6.8; late-career graduates: median difference, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.0-10.9). A higher percentage of women pursued academic positions compared with men (106 of 162 [65.4%] vs 293 of 525 [55.8%]; difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, -5.3% to 12.3%).

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that women in head and neck surgery begin their careers with high levels of academic productivity. However, over time, a divergence in academic productivity between men and women begins to develop. These data argue for research to identify possible reasons for this observed divergence in academic productivity and, where possible, develop enhanced early faculty development opportunities for women to promote their academic productivity, promotion, and advancement into leadership positions.

Women in science: myth, harsh reality, or advantage

To initiate discussion on women in science, we begin with Gerald Edelman's definition: "Science is imagination in the service of the verifiable truth," which underscores "verifiability," truth reached by evidence, as the pathway science charts to Truth. "Verifiability" is named after the Roman Goddess Veritas, the daughter of Cronos and the mother of Virtus, suggesting that mythology viewed science as embodied by a female, embedded in its historical time, and aimed to breed values. We contemplate three perspectives on the topic and discuss their potential risks. The Veracity (Veritas) Perspective holds that science is impartial to the gender, race, political camp, or religious affiliation of its practitioner and from this perspective "women in sciences" is an oxymoron; science is, essentially, genderless. We argue that this perspective is misleading. Becoming a scientist requires education, resources, encouragement, training, role models, time, and funding, and the lack of such provisions banned women from the gates of Truth. The Harsh Reality perspective brings data presenting a grim picture. From 1902 to 2022 only 3.6% of Nobel Prizes in sciences were awarded to women and percentages of women in top academic positions are a third or lower across the US and Europe despite earning about 50% of PhDs in sciences. We contemplate internal and external reasons for this reality. Finally, the Potential Advantage position asks whether women may have unique sensitivities in the road to cumulative knowledge. We base our discussion on 20th century philosophical models that call to move from the metaphysical and abstract to the daily and contextual in the acquisition of knowledge and on research describing the distinct neural pathways to motherhood and fatherhood. We conclude by highlighting our unique historical time and the emergence of novel topics in neuroscience through the work of female and male scientists; interaction synchrony, inter-brain communication, and social and affiliative neuroscience.

Male applicants are more likely to be awarded fellowships than female applicants: A case study of a Japanese national funding agency

Scientific grant applications are subjected to scholarly peer review. Studies show that the success rates of grant applications are often higher for male than for female applicants, suggesting that gender bias is common in peer review. However, these findings mostly come from studies in Europe, North America and Australia. Here we report the analyses of gender-specific success rates of applications to the fellowships offered by Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS). Because we analyze the observational data (i.e., not experimental), our aim here is to describe the possible gender gaps in the success rates, rather than the examination of gender bias per se. Results show that the success rates are consistently higher for male applicants than for female applicants among five different fellowship categories. The gender gaps in the success rates varied significantly between research fields in some Fellowship categories. Furthermore, in some fellowship categories, the gender gaps were significantly associated with the representation of female applicants (both positive and negative correlations were found). Though the causes of the gender gaps are unknown, unintentional gender bias during the review process is suggested. Pre-application gender gaps may also be contributing to the gender gaps in success rates. At least some of the observed gender gaps were relatively small, which may be partly explicable by the designs of the review process. However, gender gaps or biases acting prior to the application, such as self-selection bias, may have reduced the superficial gender gaps in the success rates. Further investigations that control for the effects of covariates (e.g., scientific merits of each applicant, which were not accessible to us) and those of other funding agencies, especially of non-Western countries, are warranted.

Scholarly activity following National Institutes of Health Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 training-a cohort study

BACKGROUND

National Institutes of Health funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions remains disproportionately low, in part because of low success rates of grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, created to advance careers of obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a cohort study of individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women's Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, and had at least 5-year follow-up. Earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes from public data sources (National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, iCite) were (1) number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; (2) numbers of total and first and last author publications; and (3) median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes from an email survey subcohort were total number of research grants, federally funded grants, and number of National Institutes of Health grants as coinvestigator; institutional promotions and academic appointments, national and National Institutes of Health leadership roles; and career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcomes were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation, and aggregate anonymized data were divided into 3 groups using Women's Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30 of 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were assessed. Results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1-2 vs 3-4), and specialty type. Analyses used Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests, and Mantel-Haenszel tests of trend.

RESULTS

The distribution of the cohort (N=178) by graduation completion date was: on or before June 30, 2005 (57 [32%]); July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (60 [34%]); and July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (61 [34%]). Most participants were female (112 [64%]) and maternal-fetal medicine trained (53 [30%]), followed by no fellowship (50 [28%]). Of the 178 participants, 72 (40%) received additional National Institutes of Health funding as a principal investigator, 45 (25%) received at least 1 R01, and 23 (13%) received 2 to 5 R01s. There were 52 (31%) scholars with >10 first author publications, 66 (39%) with >10 last author publications, and 108 (63%) with ≥25 publications. The highest relative citation ratio was a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20-15.16). There were 121 (71%) scholars with relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating >5-fold greater publication impact than that of other National Institutes of Health-funded scientists in similar areas of research. No differences by gender, institution, or temporal trends were observed. Of the full cohort, 69 (45.7%) responded to the survey; most self-identified as women (50 [73%]) and White (51 [74%]).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the infrastructure provided by an institutional K award is an advantageous career development award mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, a group of predominantly women surgeons. It may serve as a corrective for the known inequities in National Institutes of Health funding by gender.

Gender Trends in First Authorship of Academic Publications Related to Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome

Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is a congenital cardiac preexcitation syndrome that arises from abnormal cardiac electrical conduction through an accessory pathway and results in symptomatic and life-threatening arrhythmias. The aim of this study is to analyze the patterns of gender representation among first-author publications concerning "Wolf-Parkinson-White syndrome" within the PubMed-indexed publications from "January 1, 1973, to December 31, 2022," based on country and year. On May 9, 2023, bibliometric analysis was performed. The phrase "(Wolf-Parkinson-White Syndrome)" was looked up in PubMed. It covered articles released between January 1, 1973, and December 31, 2022. Articles accepted in the year 2022 and published in Pubmed in 2023 were included in the study. A total of 138 articles were considered and included in our analysis. Among these articles, 29 (21.01%) were authored by females, while 109 (78.99%) were authored by males. To conclude, this research study reveals a rising trend of females in lead authorship roles within the field of cardiac arrhythmia research. However, it remains evident that there is a significant gender gap, with male researchers still outnumbering their female counterparts.

Postdoctoral researchers' perspectives on working conditions and equal opportunities in German academia

Postdoctoral researchers (postdocs) are an essential component of the scientific workforce in German universities and research institutions and play a vital role in advancing knowledge and innovation. However, the experiences of postdocs and other early career researchers (ECRs) indicate that working conditions pose a significant challenge to the pursuit of a long-term research career in Germany-particularly for international scientists and those from marginalized groups. We examine how unstable working conditions as well as insufficient structural support for equal opportunities and diversity are significant obstacles for the career development of ECRs in German academia. We discuss these issues with the aid of an extensive survey recently conducted and published by PostdocNet, a target-group network representing the interests of postdocs across Germany's Max Planck Society. The survey drew responses from 659 postdoctoral researchers working at the Max Planck Society and represents one of the few datasets of postdoctoral researchers' perspectives in Germany. Building on these findings, we suggest actions at governmental, institutional, and individual levels to improve the working conditions of postdoctoral researchers in Germany.

Faculty as catalysts for training new inventors: Differential outcomes for male and female PhD students

STEM PhDs are a critical source of human capital in the economy, contributing to commercial as well as academic science. We examine whether STEM PhD students become new inventors (file their first patent) during their doctoral training at the top 25 U.S. universities (by patenting). We find that 4% of PhDs become new inventors. However, among PhDs of faculty who are themselves top (prolific) inventors, this figure rises to 23%. These faculty train 44% of all the new inventor PhDs by copatenting with their advisees. We also explore whether new inventor PhDs are equally distributed by gender. In our university sample, the female share of new inventors is 9% points (pp) lower than the female share of PhDs. Several channels contribute to this: First, female PhDs are less likely to be trained by top inventor advisors (TIs) than male PhDs. Second, they are less likely to be trained by (the larger number of) male top inventors: The estimated gap in the female % of PhDs between female and male TIs is 7 to 9 pp. Third, female PhDs (supervised by top inventors and especially by other faculty) have a lower probability of becoming new inventors relative to their male counterparts. Notably, we find that male and female top inventors have similar rates of transforming their female advisees into new inventors at 4 to 8 pp lower (17 to 26% lower rate) than for male advisees. The gap remains at 4 pp comparing students of the same advisor and controlling for thesis topic.

Distribution of Female and Male First and Last Authorship across Drug Delivery Related Journals with Respect to Year and Journal Impact Factor

First and last authorship are important metrics of productivity and scholarly success for trainees and professors. For 11 drug delivery-related journals in 2021, the percentage of female first (39.5%) and last (25.7%) authorship was reported. A strong negative correlation, with female first (rp = -0.73) and female last authorship (rp = -0.66), was observed with respect to journal impact factor. In contrast, there was a strong positive correlation with male first and last authorship (rp = 0.71). Papers were ∼1.5 times more likely to have a male first author, and ∼3 times more likely to have a male last author, than females. A female was 22% more likely to have first authorship if the last author was female, although there is an ∼1% increase per year in female authorship with male last authorship, which equates to equality in first authorship by 2044. Considering that drug delivery is composed of engineering, chemistry, and pharmaceutical science disciplines, the observed 25.7% female last authorship does not represent the approximately 35.5% to 50% of professors that are female in these disciplines, internationally. Overall, female authorship in drug delivery-related journals should improve to better represent the work of female senior authors.

Self-perceived competences by future chemistry teachers in Brazil

In this work we have compared the self-perceived competences of future chemistry teachers who are pursuing teacher training courses in all the regions of Brazil taking the following factors into account: sex, age and Brazilian region origin. A quantitative exploration was adopted and the data were collected using the Self-Perceived Competences of Teachers in Initial Chemistry Training (SPCTICT) instrument, composed of 21 items. An exploratory factor analysis enabled grouping the items into three factors: (a) self-perception of technical competences (knowledge), (b) Self-perception of competences linked to specific aspects (know-how) and, finally, (c) self-perception of generic competences (knowing how to act or how to behave). The results demonstrate statistically significant differences among men and women on the self-perception of their own competences regarding knowledge construction in chemistry.